Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the season curve and frost record are shared across plantings, that one call answers the whole block, and that geometry travels once if saved with block_save. It doesn't mention error behavior for ambiguous block matches, but the schema does. It also doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, but the description's framing ('Returns...') implies a read. Given no annotations, this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a one-line summary, then a clear breakdown of what is returned, then a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds efficiency context without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description explains the core behavior, the shared-curve optimization, and the block reference flexibility. It doesn't explicitly state prerequisites like needing to save a block first, but the block parameter description covers that. It also doesn't mention what happens if the block is not found or if plantings are invalid, but the schema and error listing hint at it. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning for the 'block' parameter by explaining how to reference a block (id, name, alias, unique partial name) and the ambiguity error behavior. It also clarifies the 'plantings' structure with an example. The 'npub' and 'dpop_token' parameters are not described in the description, but the schema covers them. The description adds value beyond the schema for the key parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it returns, per planting, heat accumulated, projected completion date, and a frost verdict. It names the resource (block plantings) and the specific outputs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing one call answers the whole block, which differentiates it from per-planting or per-block tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use it: when you need to know where every planting on a block stands and whether it finishes before frost. It also gives a strong usage hint: one call covers the whole block, so asking about eight beds costs one round trip. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.